Stability of aggression during early adolescence as moderated by reciprocated friendship status and friend’s aggression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of friendship reciprocation and friend aggression on the stability of aggression across a 6-month period following the transition to secondary school was studied in a sample of 298 Grade 6 children from a predominately white, middle-class, Midwestern American community. The stability of aggression was generally high but it varied as a function of (1) the level of aggression of both individuals in the friendship and (2) whether the friendship was reciprocated. For children with high initial levels of aggression, those with unreciprocated aggressive friends were the most stable in their aggression. For children with low initial levels of aggression, most children remained stably low in aggression, with type of friendship and friend aggression having little effect on stability. Adolescents who were high in aggression at time 1 (T1) and had an aggressive friend (reciprocated or not) remained aggressive at time 2 (T2), but those who were aggressive at T1 and had nonaggressive friends actually displayed much lower levels of aggression at T2. The opposite did not occur for those adolescents low in aggression at T1. Those low in aggression with aggressive friends at T1 did not increase in aggression. These findings were discussed in light of current thinking about the effect of friendship on development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".